Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.
“Interest of justice” is being used as an excuse for refusing to enforce laws they don’t agree with in that given example. “Contrary to the interest of justice” is always going to be a squishy term, but calling a blanket refusal to prosecute something that the legislature has decided to criminalise is, in my opinion, not an exercise of discretion but an abuse of it and willing dereliction of duty.
Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.
“Interest of justice” is being used as an excuse for refusing to enforce laws they don’t agree with in that given example. “Contrary to the interest of justice” is always going to be a squishy term, but calling a blanket refusal to prosecute something that the legislature has decided to criminalise is, in my opinion, not an exercise of discretion but an abuse of it and willing dereliction of duty.